Archive 45

←

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

→

Archive 55

A discussion not long ago popped up regarding the reliability of The Needle Drop, a music orientated review blog, (see here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#The Needle Drop - Discussion of The Needle Drop), and based on the reading of this discussion I think that The reception section of the album article style guide and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources is outdated on what the qualifications for a spot in the critical reception section should be. Music magazines and newspaper are becoming less influential in the music industry and music blogs are gaining huge followings. I'm not convinced that being on the payroll and being from a "traditional" publication is reason enough to deem your critique more important any more. Do people disapprove of the reviews of blog's such as The Needle Drop because their opinion's are not published in "reliable", traditional publications such as The Rolling Stone, or is it because it is a new medium of publication that editors believe imitate legitimacy, despite rising influence - It should also be noted that The Needle Drop, the example used, does get paid for what he does and has media presence outside of his own website/youtube channel. Surely prioritizing tradition over reality isn't very encyclopedic. Thoughts? Am I missing something here? RatRat (talk) 16:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The mediums of journalism are changing, sure, but the standards haven't.

• Here's what review sources should have:

• Fall in line with what is defined at WP:RS. That usually involves having a dedicated staff and editorial team, writers with credentials (whether it be formal education or past history writing for other RS's.) It can also help if other reliable sources often cite them as their source, or publish their material, as well.

• Here's what review sources should avoid:

• Violating WP:USERG.
• Generally being random people or fans on the internet, without any credentials, history, or authority on their subject.

From what I gathered, The Needle Drop wasn't deemed reliable due to failing WP:USERG. It sounds like he's largely just a random guy who started up his own blog/Youtube channel. He's developed a bit of a following, but otherwise, there are just thousands and thousands of random people just like him. Which is fine, I'm not saying he's bad or anything, but it doesn't make him a reliable source in the Wikipedia context. Sergecross73 msg me 16:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Understand and agree. Though I'd like to add that I think that the "credentials" of what define the line between a random person or fan on the internet and a qualified reviewer are shifting. I'm surprised that "credentials" such as a dedicated staff etc. are prioritized over influence in the music fan base. But I do understand about reliable sources being sourced elsewhere. RatRat (talk) 02:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

you're right that Anthony Fantano probably has a decent level of influence over what people are listening to, that he is a notable person in the music industry and (unfortunately!) pretty well regarded as a music critic. but, this doesn't necessarily make noting his opinions about music consistent with Wikipedia's goals as an encyclopedia. reliability and influence are, of course, two different things. the purpose of this project's reliability guideline is to encourage editors to use reviews from people who speak about music with authority because they come from a background that has given them that authority (such as the music industry or academia). Anthony Fantano is just some guy—some guy who a lot of people listen to, sure, but that doesn't mean what he's saying is valuable to Wikipedia, necessarily.

here's a sort of silly analogy. say there are two books about Annemarie Schwarzenbach. one was written by a seasoned biographer who did thorough research through a prestigious university. the other was written by Anthony Fantano of The Needle Drop, who took a German class in high school (nb this analogy is purely hypothetical; Fantano's Teutonic background is not known to me). his book may or may not be full of factual errors—it's vanity published so there was no copy editor. but people love Fantano's book because it's more entertaining; it becomes a best-seller, and it has a huge influence on what people think about Schwarzenbach. regardless, i think it's pretty clear which book you'd rather cite on Wikipedia! Boomur [☎] 03:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The question isn't one of medium - for example, Consequence of Sound does reviews in video format - but of reliability. This is becoming an issue with books, too, when you have companies like Amazon publishing works through vanity presses. Publishing content directly removes editorial oversight from the equation. The Needle Drop is a more extraordinary case, because Fantano has done reviews for various publications, and does have a certain level of legitimacy. While I personally think that his non-self-published work has demonstrated that he could be considered a reliable professional who can be cited as long as he isn't making claims about living persons, the consensus is that only his non-self-published works are reliable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• The interpretation above that we can't use The Needle Drop because it's self published is incorrect. Per WP:RSOPINION "some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier." Or, put more simply, he is considered a reliable source for his own reviews. (And having editorial oversight isn't all that it's cracked up to be [1])Calidum T|C 03:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I was assuming that it goes without saying that sources can be used as sources for themselves.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Which means it shouldn't matter if a review is self published or not. Calidum T|C 04:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

No, that's not what it means. It means that we can cite The Needle Drop for information about The Needle Drop or about Fantano.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm talking about a different policy guideline. The question is, what is the review being used to support? I personally agree that it might be used to support Fantano's opinion on an album. However, why should his opinion be mentioned at the expense of others? That is the question.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

And that's a fair question to ask. In my opinion, it probably should be made on a case by case basis instead of a blanket prohibition on using his reviews. Calidum T|C 20:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Boomur your analogy does make sense to me. I should probably point out that I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and I'm not entirely familiar with the details of all the guidelines, but I can see why The Needle Drop may not be such a reliable source as I thought it had been. Though in regards to your analogy, credentials such as degrees etc. in music reviewing aren't really that familiar. Robert Christgau is regularly cited in Wikipedia and is seen as a reliable source. And most references to him cite his personal archives, not a third party source. Christgau also doesn't have any kind of music degree or education and got his start in music publishing, much like Anthony Fantano. I'm not sure if any of this is relevant, but I suppose what I'm saying is this is where my confusion on the matter stems from. Also 3family6 I understand that I perhaps didn't take the editorial insight issue into account and I can definitely see why that would be needed to ensure a reliable source. RatRat (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't use Christgau as a good example, he's really more of an exception, a leftover from an earlier era, before the prevalence of blogs and Youtube, from an era where Wikipedia standards were more lax. Based on more recent discussions, I almost wonder if Christgau would still be considered reliable if someone started a well thought out challenge to his current status... Sergecross73 msg me 23:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd say he's about as reliable as you can get for a professional critic. Useful, now that's another question.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's not forget that Christgau has also written for many reputed publications. I'm guessing that's why he's considered reliable, even for cites from his own website, per WP:SPS. Has Fantano written for any reputed publications? Kokoro20 (talk) 07:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Kokoro20: He started out as a show on a local NPR channel, but in the discussion linked above, an editor pointed out that local NPR shows do not have much, if any, editorial oversight. So the NPR show doesn't really qualify. Publications that would qualify would be MTV, AUX, Triple J, and Consequence of Sound, all of which Fantano has done reviews for: Weird Vibes Ep. #15: MTV VJ Cal Chuchesta , 10 songs that ruined the Needle Drop's childhood, Anthony Fantano Takes 5 with his retrospective perspective..., Rock it Out! Blog and The Needle Drop unite to review Coldplay’s “Atlas”.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

They're only reputed publication? Why aren't they actual publications. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Surely then Fantano's history of publishing for reliable sources in the past qualifies him to be considered a reliable source in accordance with WP:SPS. Though this may not prove that he is more useful than other critics for citing in critical recption sections, surely, if there is not many critical opinions on a release, his critical opinion qualifies to be included. But as of now The Needle Drop is considered an unreliable source on WP:MUSIC/SOURCES. I should add that this issue was raised in the aforementioned discussion, but nobody seemed to address the fact that WP:SPS qualifies some users whose work has been published by reliable sources. I know this doesn't automatically qualify The Needle Drop as a reliable source. But it does make him a consideration. And seeing as so many people seem to be adding him as a source on critical receptions, does this not mean that he should be considered again for his status as a reliable source?RatRat (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I actually did bring up the argument about him being qualified under WP:SPS, and I think he is reliable per that guideline. However, the other editors disagreed with me, and I deferred to their judgement so as not to create a major dispute.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Considering the publications he's written for, I would agree with him reliable under that guideline too then. Kokoro20 (talk) 21:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

A year or so ago, when I was mediating between 2 users on whether or not Piero Scaruffi was an RS or not, the consensus was basically that his published work was, but his self-published stuff wasn't. That's a possible approach here too I suppose. With PS, that discounted about 99% of his work...but may the ratios more favorable here? Sergecross73 msg me 18:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The number of people who keep trying to add him as a source has no bearing on whether or not he's reliable. On the video game side of Wikipedia, there are websites like Gamefaqs and VGChartz which are constantly added by a ton of editors. But that doesn't make it right, they strongly fail WP:SPS and WP:RS, and they are rightfully removed when found by experienced editors. So that's not a good rationale to work off of. Feel free to bring the Needle Drop by WP:RSN and see their thoughts on it - though I'm pretty sure they're going to have SPS problems with it... Sergecross73 msg me 05:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

@User:Sergecross73 I never meant to imply that the number of users putting The Needle Drop as a source on Wikipedia somehow qualified it as a reliable source. What I meant to say was that I thought factors such as The Needle Drops history of publishing for reliable sources qualified it to be considered a reliable source in accordance with WP:SPS and that the number of people adding him as a source implied that others believed this to be so too. I'm certainly not saying that we should add The Needle Drop as a source on all new music releases from now on. I'm just saying that seeing as he meets the criteria on WP:SPS, maybe it should be considered that The Needle Drop can be added as a source if there is not many other critical opinions on an article for a music release. I didn't mean to imply that The Needle Drop being cited so often meant that it was a reliable source. RatRat (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, I had misinterpreted what you had said then. Sergecross73 msg me 18:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

A small thing to ask about the guideline discouraging its use: if the AllMusic sidebar states that an album is (e.g.) heavy metal, and the review (simply noting song highlights and whether to recommend the album or not) makes no mention of genres, can the sidebar then be used if better sources are not available? I'm referring to obscure or lesser-known albums without a great deal of coverage, where a complete AllMusic review (with a star rating and prose) winds up as the main source for notability. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 00:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES#Sources to avoid already states "AllMusic's genre sidebar should generally be avoided if better sources are available". So, as a last resort option, it should be fine. Kokoro20 (talk) 01:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The way the genre cloud in the sidebar is created does not reflect the way that reliable sources are used. In short, no, don't use the genre cloud in the sidebar, ever. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

So if no source whatsoever states the genre of an album in prose, yet the AllMusic sidebar states something at least, the article's infobox genre field should be left blank altogether? That's the impression I'm getting. Gotta say, I'm not feeling it. Seems overly restrictive. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel verifiability is overly restrictive. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Uh-huh, right. So with that said, a solution should still be found. Can we not squeeze out something from the sidebar if not from the prose? In the case of this album, the review does not explicitly state "The genre of this album is heavy metal and neoclassical metal". It describes the musical content in detail, but not genres. Whatever an editor on WP decides to put in the field will automatically be POV. The AllMusic sidebar states heavy metal and "guitar virtuoso" (the latter a nonexistent genre). I'll ask for a second time: should the genre field be left blank because the source in question makes no so-called verifiable mention of genres? If so, then a whole buttload of articles will need correcting. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

For the third time, no. The genre cloud is not a reliable source and so fails verifiability. It cannot be used to support an album's genre. That is even in the absence of prose at AllMusic. Your simplistic view of how the genre should be listed in a review is of concern though.

If the AllMusic entry doesn't discuss the album's genre, it may not even be a good review. Many editors have problems with using AllMusic at all and what you're stating is one of the problems.

If you can't find any other sources that discuss the album's genre, perhaps the album isn't particularly notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how the sidebar can suddenly become reliable if there is no prose review. What is the mechanism for that? It's the same crummy algorithm that tells us the genre is reggae while the prose review says there is no reggae in sight. Stay away from the sidebar. Binksternet (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

"Your simplistic view of how the genre should be listed in a review is of concern though." Not the impression I meant to give, so have patience with me. If simplistic is the word at hand, then it's just my way of getting absolute clarification on how to go about this. I have that clarification now; you said it; we repeated ourselves; I had to make sure a few times; all good. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Who edits the AllMusic sidebars anyway? Obviously not users, since the genre sidebar can't be edited by users. Since the sidebar sometimes contradicts the review prose, as shown in the examples at WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES, it couldn't be the people writing the reviews either. Unless there's better proof that the sidebar is completely unreliable, I still support using it as a last resort. Kokoro20 (talk) 01:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

It's one of those things where, I guess you could use it, but it would have to be removed upon virtually any good-faith contesting of it. Considering that's about the same protocol as would be with adding a genre with no source at all, it kind of begs the question "What's the point?" Sergecross73 msg me 01:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

A NFCR is currently taking place that members of this project may wish to participate in. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:Yeezus Kanye West.jpg. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, several months ago I took up the job to transform the article of sources into one single and easy to understand table, but shorty after I started time has become somewhat difficult to manage. I of course still do Wikipedia but this job is massive! I would like to ask if it is possible to move the work in progress table to here for others to help build up on? Here is the table itself: User:SilentDan297/sandbox#Table - SilentDan (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

If you don't mind, why not just leave it in your sandbox? We can edit it just fine there.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Years ago, User:Jogers created these lists that were helpful for album cleanup tasks:

• User:Jogers/List2
• User:Jogers/List3
• User:Jogers/List4
• User:Jogers/List5
• User:Jogers/List6
• User:Jogers/List7

It would be great if someone with bot knowledge could figure out how to do this again. Thanks.Fisherjs (talk) 11:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

we don't need a source for the genre every album and song, for many you can't even get sources seems to contradicts the guideline that is summarized: "requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged". In general, the album's style should be discussed and sources in the article in a style or composition section and the infobox should be a summary of that. I have also seen references added directly to the genres in the infobox. This article in particular has had many genre warriors. A standard practice is to remove all genres in that case. Comments? Suggestion? Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

My opinion is that including specific references in the album's article, as you're describing, is ideal, but when they're not there, it's fine to include genres that are sourced on the band's page (or for songs genres that are sourced on their album's page etc.). There are indeed articles on works that will never have reliable sources referring specifically to their genres, and it's better to provide some info to the reader when it is likely to be accurate. If genre warriors keep messing with the infobox, a note can be left in it saying the genres are sourced and where.--MASHAUNIX 02:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing this BTW, and sorry I reverted you; instead I should have started the discussion myself. I remain firm in my stance though.--MASHAUNIX 02:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

As stated, the problem is that it's not always easy to find sources for albums and especially songs. There's been times when I have searched for genre classifications for certain albums and songs where I have found nothing, even after an extensive Google search. However, I had added post-grunge to the infobox in the article in question a couple weeks or so back, due to genre being sourced by the AllMusic review. Either way, I've never been fond of the practice of removing the genres altogether. And yes, I agree with adding a hidden note if arbitrary genre changes keep happening, and just keep reverting them. Kokoro20 (talk) 02:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

A peer review request can be found here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys, I'm one of the delegates at WP:FLC (aka one of the editors that promotes/doesn't promote Featured List nominations). Lately we've been noticing a problem at FLC, particularly with music-related nominations, and I thought I'd drop by just to give you all a heads-up about it. Basically what we've been seeing is nominations where shortly after the nomination begins several other music editors drop by to vote support without any comments beyond "good job" or the like. Perfectly fine, if there's no real issues with the list, but several times recently those initial "reviews" have been followed by 2-3 fairly substantive reviews by other editors that find some major issues with both the list itself (tables, etc.) and the prose. (not to pick on anyone, but example 1, example 2.) When that happens, it gives off the impression that the initial reviewers didn't, well, actually review the list. I really, really don't think it's anything so untoward as editors trying to create easy passes, or support trading- what I think is that some editors, even those with plenty of experience, just take a brief glance at the list, say "yup, looks good", and support.

The problem is, when we (the delegates) see supports without comments, followed by several intensive reviews that show big problems with the list? We basically have to throw out the initial supports as invalid. This wastes everyone's time, including the nominator's and the initial reviewers', and tends to really upset the nominator. It's just a bad time all around. This is not a problem that's limited to music lists, and not even a problem that's limited to FLC- there was a while, for example, when WP:VG nominations at FAC would get several quick-supports from well-meaning editors, but the only effect was to piss off the FAC delegates and hinder the nominations.

All I'm saying is, if you're reviewing a nomination at FLC (no matter the subject)? Please take at least 5-10 minutes and look through it closely for prose, grammar, logic, formatting, and referencing issues. Just supporting without reviewing a bit in-depth actually hurts more than it helps- it stalls the nominations, upsets the other reviewers and the nominator, and too much of it can sour editors on FLC/music lists/whatever. Thanks! --PresN 01:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:ALBUM/SOURCE says that Sputnik staff/emeritus reviews are usable on articles and contributor/user reviews are not. I was checking reviews on Human (Death album) and noticed the sputnik review is written by a "user": link, which means this review should be removed from the article. However, checking through an archived version of the review I noticed that the writer was listed as a "staff" member in 2014 when this review was added to the article, link, so the addition would have been valid then according to our guidelines. Furthermore, I checked an older archived version and saw that the writer was listed as a "user" when the review was published in 2010: link. Also, note that the review content and score has completely changed between 2014 and now, I assume when this writer was delisted as a "staff" member, but the original publication date (2010) still remains on the revised review.

Two main problems arise from this example. Firstly, "Staff" reviews could be removed from articles when a the writer's position is changed to "user". Secondly, "user" reviews could be added to articles when a writer is promoted to a "staff" position even though the review was published when they were a regular user. The guideline should be revised to say that the writer must be a "staff" member on the date the review was published, not before or after. But then this leads to another problem: for every sputnik review we include on Wikipedia, we must check an archived version on the date of publication to see if they were listed as a "staff" member as most of their writers appear to have been non-professional users at one point. I'm not sure we will have archived version of every sputnik review listed here on the date of publication. And then we have the problem that reviews are being completely rewritten with new scores without the publication date being updated, adding further confusion.

Any thoughts on this? Has this issue been addressed before in a previous discussion I've missed? (Sidenote: Why is Sputnik even listed on WP:ALBUM/SOURCE as professional in the first place? Is it because the site is popular and snowball effect made it become a regular source on Wikipedia? Or can anyone point me somewhere that indicates they have professional editorial team rather than just paying forum members/contributors to write reviews and changing the writer's site status?) --The1337gamer (talk) 01:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I havent personally noticed this coming up before, while reading their site or by Wikipedia users. Anyone have any idea it's very common for changes in their staff status like this? Sergecross73 msg me 02:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The staff and emeritus content from the site is reliable, as other publications consider it such. For instance, it is considered a reliable review publication by Metacritic. This incident of a user being promoted to staff and then demoted is an interesting one. I would assume that the archived version would be reliable if done while the writer was a staff member. However, I'm not sure how should handle a situation where the review was written before the writer was a staff member.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Template:Allmusic to be moved to Template:AllMusic. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 17:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Beauty and the Beast: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack to be moved to Beauty and the Beast (soundtrack). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for In Paradisum (Symfonia album) to be moved to In Paradisum (album). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Bloodwork (Texas in July album) to be moved to Bloodwork (album). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A number of songs on my watchlist recently were categorized into "199X songs" categories. I did not find this to be particularly helpful, especially as the songs were never notable in the slightest. (They were merged to the album at AfD and are likely not even helpful as redirects but alas.) Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects advises against this sort of non-particular use, and I can't find any community consensus apart from being told it'd be tedious and no outside response in 2010. My discussion with the editor is here. Should song redirects be categorized? czar ⨹ 12:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Responses should be at at this discussion which user:czar started yesterday. Little point in trying to get three different resolutions. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

That was a traditional notice for interested parties. That page has had no traffic in a year, which is why I started a discussion at this more appropriate and populated venue. czar ⨹ 13:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

It depends upon the nature of the redirect. If it is merely a variant title and points to an article about the song itself (such as No No No (A Pink song)), then no, it shouldn't be categorised separately, save for use of one or more of the standard redirect templates like {{R from modification}}. But if there is no article about the song itself, and the redir points to an article about the album containing the song (such as Columbia (Oasis song)), then it is quite in order to put the cats that are specific to the song onto the redirect. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

This seems to imply that we should have redirects created for every song from every album for which those songs don't already have an article, and then having those redirects categorized appropriately. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Why not? People might want to find information about Columbia (Oasis song), but not know which album it was included on. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not necessary. Most songs are not notable. Most songs will never have a link created for them. We only have redirects if a page was created for a song and it may in some way be considered important (has charted, or had a video created, etc.) but did not meet GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Walter Görlitz: and @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars:. Those are very good reasons not to create redirects for songs which I applaud. Howver, if a redirect exists, why not categorise appropriately? --Richhoncho (talk) 20:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

There's justification for the redirect, but not for categorizing it. I would hate to see a category of some artist's songs with 75 entries but with only 7 or 8 actual articles because a redirect was created and categorized for every song from every album (see Category:A Day to Remember songs). Categorizing a redirect in which the redirect takes me to an album in which the only thing I learn about the song is what track number it is, is a waste of my time. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Because a redirect is not an article, it's a tool. All redirects with the appropriate redirect template already has an appropriate hidden category. For instance, see Category:Redirects from albums. For the appropriate redirect templates see Category:All redirect templates. It has no other appropriate categories for it's not an article about an album by an artist, not an article about an album release on a specific label, not an article about an album released in a specific country and not an article about an album released in a specific year. Why? Because it's not an article about an album, it's just a redirect. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars:. You make a very valid point with Category:A Day to Remember songs, however that is a definitive and specific problem because one editor went through their record collection and added every song for this and a few other bands. Should these redirects be deleted. Yes, I would say. Could they be deleted? Doubt it, "redirects are cheap" etc. So the question then becomes if the subject matter is notable enough to exist as only a direct then they are also notable enough to be classified (or as we say at WP, "categorized"). I would also point out that there is even guidelines for categorizing redirects which supports categorizing of song redirects. As for cats containing only redirects - I've nominated a few of them for deletion myself. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

By having the redirect from song template it is categorized. Since it's not an article about a song, it shouldn't be in any song categories. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying, instance, if an article is put into a maintenance category all other categories should be removed? --Richhoncho (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "maintenance category" so I have no answer. However, if an article is moved to a user space, all categories are either removed or backlinks are broken by adding colons. That's because it's not an official article. Similarly, if an article contains no content other than a redirect, it should be treated as a non-article. There is no content there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Please see the examples at WP:REDCAT. It shows examples of categorization and templates... You wrote, "...having the redirect from song template it is categorized." OK No argument there, save that a song template is a maintenance category. Then you wrote, "...it shouldn't be in any song categories." Hence my question.--Richhoncho (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I was just coming here to say that we'll have to get REDCAT changed. It's stupid. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

You are entitled to an opinion, but you still need consensus to change. Since my last post I checked out other redirects that are also categorized, in those few minutes I found, Buster Baxter, LHR, Decay (Exemplar), Stephanie Rogers (Dallas)

Smosh, Rafi Fine, Dylan Hockley, Anthony Walker (murder victim), The Albert Anastasia EP. None of which I have ever edited, which does reinforce the point that if WP:REDCAT should be amended, then WP:ALBUMS or WP:SONGS is not the place to have the discussion. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

That's the plan. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• I just don't see how it is beneficial or useful to see a category of 100 redirects and 5 with actual articles, especially when you get zero information on the song except for what's contained in a track list. Just because a redirect exists doesn't mean the topic has any notability. If the subject matter of a redirect has any notability, whatever notability it has should be mentioned and sourced with the redirect target. In those cases, categorizing such redirects makes sense. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

That made sense until the last sentence, particularly "Just because a redirect exists doesn't mean the topic has any notability." An extension of that should be "because a topic does not have notability it should not belong to any categories." The sources should go in the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Walter Görlitz, what's the next step? RFC on REDCAT's page? I don't see what venue would care more than this page so the RFC strikes me as needless bureaucracy. – czar 13:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Current guideline has to change. We have to discuss it there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

No need for the current guideline to change. The guideline does not prohibit these categories and there has been longstanding consensus to include them. There is no valid reason not to categorize redirects. If the category page has lots of redirects, those are italicized so you know they are a redirect and don't have to click on it if you don't want to be redirected. But if you are interested in the song that is being redirected, you can at least get whatever information exists in the redirect target. Rlendog (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Which is why it needs to change. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

A Request for Comments about the use of album covers is currently on at Talk:Shades of Deep Purple#Cover dispute. It would be greatly appreciated to have more opinions on the matter. Lewismaster (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Is there any purpose being served by the many Johnny Cash album articles being numbered ("third album", "27th album", etc). The existence of discography lists and the Johnny Cash template renders such things redundant and also it creates a situation where dozens of articles need to be revised now because someone counted The Lure of the Grand Canyon as a Cash album when it is not (he contributed a spoken-word track, that's all). So now every album thereafter has to be renumbered. The numbering is also being used for compilation albums, albums by other labels containing Cash recordings, etc. It's confusing and meaningless. Unless someone objects when time permits I'll follow WP:BOLD and strip all such references (or if someone else wants to do it, please feel free!). The numbering issue kicks in with All Aboard the Blue Train which was a compilation album, not a release of new material. 68.146.52.234 (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're probably fighting an uphill battle with this. People across the website feel compelled to number successive releases like this, across all media. Music/video games/film/ etc. Even though the game's are only loosely connected, people continually add that Skyward Sword is the 12th entry of the The Legend of Zelda series of video games. They even do it when its self-explanatory and redundant (Persona 5 is the fifth entry of the Persona series.) Its just the way people are. I don't believe any policy or guideline necessarily prevents your actions, but I think that, unless you plan on making this a long-term, pet project, your work will probably largely be undone. Sergecross73 msg me 18:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it's going to be easier just to discount The Lure of the Grand Canyon than remove the numbering from all Cash albums.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Talk:Kill 'Em All (Metallica album) regarding how to present chart information in cases where an album has re-charted at various times over the years, usually when re-issued. Additional input would be greatly appreciated. Piriczki (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Please see: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 4#Debut album. I'm surprised that there isn't an article covering the concept of "debut albums." Is that something that could be added to Album at least? Tavix | Talk  14:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It was deleted at AFD 8 years ago, FYI. I guess either there really wasn't anything to be said, or no one bothered expanding it. I think a redirect to Album makes sense, personally. Sergecross73 msg me 16:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I want to ask whether a person needs to be re-introduced (full name, profession, linked) in the first section of an album article if he is already mentioned in the lead? Cliff Burton, Peter Mensch, Don Brautigam, etc. are mentioned in the lead of Master of Puppets and do they need to be mentioned with full name or just surname in the "Background and recording"? Cliff Burton's article implies so, but I'd like to hear other opinions.--Retrohead (talk) 12:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not listed at the top of the page, but it is listed in the charts section, so it was a single from the soundtrack.--108.239.228.112 (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I've opened a move request for the above album: you can see my reasoning on the related talk page. As this album is rated as "top importance" on this WikiProject's importance scale, it would kind of make a mockery of that rating if nobody contributed to the discussion. ;-) Please feel free to add your comments for or against the move. Richard3120 (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.--Lucas559 (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

A controversy between myself and User:Esszet about the use of non-free multiple covers in music albums articles started while editing Shades of Deep Purple and was discussed in Talk:Shades of Deep Purple#Cover dispute. With the contribution of other editors, what came out of the discussion was the lack of a clear rule for the use of covers in infobox and extra album cover templates. Template:Infobox album recites "An image of the official front cover of the original version of the album (or a reissue, if no original cover can be found) should be included at Cover". Assuming that with some research on the Internet more than 99% of original covers can be retrieved, I think that the words "official" and "original" need some clarification, because there are too many examples of random use of covers in the articles. Here are some criteria used in album articles which emerged from the discussion:

1. Temporal criterion: On top of the infobox there is the cover of the very first edition, regardless of country, support (vinyl, CD) or popularity. Other notable covers should go in the extra album cover template.
2. Artist's intent criterion: The main cover should be the one that the artist wanted to be considered official, regardless of time of release or record label decisions, and other editions relegated to the extra template. The editors should try to discern the artist's intention or...
3. Country of origin criterion: ...select the main cover depending on the artist's country of origin, assuming that he had more control in his home country of the final output.
4. Popularity criterion: The cover on top of the infobox is simply the best known and most popular, implying that more recent CD reissues or editions with larger print runs should be chosen.

In my edits I always used the first criterion, often reversing the placement of covers selected with different standards, but this is not a universally accepted behavior. For example, Led Zeppelin and many Loudness discography articles should follow the first or third criterion, but sport the most popular covers instead. Out of Our Heads apparently follows the third criterion, Open Up and Say... Ahh! the first and second and so on. Wouldn't it be better to have only one standard for cover selection? I would really appreciate some input on the matter by other editors and maybe reach a consensus to better define the use of covers. Lewismaster (talk) 07:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll wait to hear from other editors before giving my opinion, but I'd like to add a few things:

1. With Out of Our Heads, you're dealing with two entirely different versions of the same album; each version has 12 songs on it, and they have a grand total of 6 tracks in common. The same principle that applies in deciding which version of the album receives precedence in the article as a whole in such cases should probably also apply in deciding which album cover receives precedence in the main infobox when different versions of the album are much more similar.
2. As regards Loudness articles, the country of origin criterion may, when used, stop where the English-speaking world ends; with all Kraftwerk albums that differ in any way between their German and international versions, for example (some differ only in the names of the album and songs whereas others differ in language and, in at least one case, mixing details), the international version receives precedence in the entire article, most likely because, unlike the ‘original’ (or roughly, main) versions of albums such as Out of Our Heads, Rubber Soul, and My Generation, the international versions of those albums are much less well-known in the English-speaking world, which should obviously receive precedence on the English-language Wikipedia in cases in which such differences exist.
3. Another very good article to use as a point of reference is Appetite for Destruction; the cover was changed due to censorship and the original cover was obviously what the artist intended (it was even supposed to be on a much later reissue, although the record label replaced it with the more familiar version at the last minute), but the more familiar cover is the one in the main infobox. Esszet (talk) 01:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I used to assumed that having two cover arts is not that excessive. However, administrators like masem and some others like IndianBio have disagreed, so we must reluctantly use one. Regarding nationality, I usually prefer one that was physically available to a singer's original home country, like Australia or America. However, I may choose an edition from abroad under following special circumstances, especially for older releases:

1. An edition from a singer's home region lacks a cover art (but I sometimes or often choose a side label of a home region edition), so an edition from overseas is used instead. ((They Long to Be) Close to You – Carpenters version)
2. An edition from the home region turns out to be a promo, so a commercially-released edition from overseas is used instead. (Down So Long)
3. A cover art of one edition from home region is available but not on computer, so a cover art of another edition from overseas is used instead.

That's what I've done. --George Ho (talk) 09:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I've discussed singles. Moving on to albums, usually one is enough. If another is necessary more than just decorative or apparent, perhaps I shall add it. Sometimes disagreements lead to just one cover art used. That's the case for Let It Loose (album). I uploaded one extra cover art, but it was removed as unnecessary and decorative. George Ho (talk) 10:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Non-free content#Guideline examples extra non-free cover art should be used only for commentary of the item itself. So it is acceptable to have an extra cover if the cover is cited in the text of the article. What is not clear is which cover should be placed on top of the infobox. Lewismaster (talk) 12:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

To MiewEN. I perfectly understand your reasons, but I don't agree with them. Notability can be quite difficult to determine, in particular for older albums which had many editions and switched from vinyl to CD format. And what about albums which did not have any chart history of note? For example Shout at the Devil charted in his vinyl format, which had a completely different cover than the current CD edition. Which is more popular and notable, the LP or the one currently available in all retailer shops? The US edition of Shades of Deep Purple charted high in 1968, but since then dozens of editions with different covers were released and, as Esszet remarked, the current one sports the British cover. Which is more notable? Killing Is My Business... and Business Is Good! did not chart and the cover of the original vinyl edition is no longer available on later reissues. Does this make it less notable? Snakebite is notable for being the first release by Whitesnake, but it did not chart and its article sports in the infobox the cover of the rare 4-tracks EP, which is now a collector's item. Should it show the CD cover from the much more available Geffen Records CD edition instead? Is it more popular? In my opinion, judging the popularity of an item is not what an editor should do. As Dennisthemonkeychild and Dan56 agreed with in our initial discussion, the use in the infobox of the first official cover is much simpler and doesn't leave space to interpretations. I would stand for this criterion, pal. Lewismaster (talk) 16:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey MiewEN, this is what RfCs are about. On this matter you have an opinion, I have another opinion, Esszet have a third opinion and so on. I agree that this discussion is about a technicality, but useless and time-spending edit wars arise easily without consensus and clear rules on technicalities. Multiple covers appear quite often in album articles and I would like to have a shared idea about how to place them. So far no luck... Lewismaster (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if the WikiProject is aware, but there's a discussion at Template talk:Track listing#Grammar is not needed concerning {{track listing}}, specifically, whether the words "were" and "was" should be included in the template, so that the present text "All songs written and composed by X."/"All lyrics written by Y, all music composed by Z." would instead read "All songs were written and composed by X."/"All lyrics were written by Y, all music was composed by Z.". --Redrose64 (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I've been browsing archive.org for some older sites to source reviews from. I've come across Playlouder and Dotmusic as notable sources? Thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Both Playlouder and Dotmusic are used for scores on Metacritic, which usually uses reliable sources [2][3]. Both had a stable staff and editors and did not accept reviews from users. I think that all these features make them reliable sources. Lewismaster (talk) 07:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Glad you agree. Before adding them to the reliable source page, I'll let this stay a bit more if any further discussion is required. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I have no objections either, especially Dotmusic, which has been around for decades and is now owned by Yahoo. Sergecross73 msg me 15:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Great! If there are no further objections, I'll add them to list.Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Now, this is something that really bugs me: people adding genres to albums of which we have not even heard a teaser, let alone a single song, just "because all of that band/artist's music is tagged like that". I find this really unprofessional, as we should not assume "artistic inertia", particularly in a medium where style changes are far from unheard of. There are of course occasionally primary source claims of the style a particular album will take, but even that should be taken with a pinch of salt (if I had a record for every album claimed to be rock and roll or punk and that ended up being completely unlike them, I probably would have a much larger collection).

Case in point, The Book of Souls: while I don't expect for Maiden to suddenly release an album full of NWWesque collages and folk ditties, it is not outside the realm of possibilities that they'll end up doing something that's much closer to progressive metal or even power metal than straight up heavy metal (yes, I know the term also works as an umbrella for all metal, but it's a de facto particular style). 190.109.207.10 (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

You are correct in your thought process, unless there's a source saying otherwise. If the album isn't out, and there aren't any sources on the genre, then it should remain blank per WP:V, and the burden to provide a sources would be on the person who wants to include the genre. On other hand, if there's a reliable source out there defining the genre, then that would be a different story, dependent on who the source is, and how they came to such a conclusion. Sergecross73 msg me 20:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

As an aside, I find it completely baffling that people take more interest in labelling the genre "correctly" than improving the article itself. All the action on Hounds of Love, for example, seems to centre on what the album's genre is, rather than improving the main body of text of what is surely an album that should be a candidate for GA at some point. Richard3120 (talk) 20:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh I agree. It's truly baffling how people obsess and argue over their on subjective view on genre. It's a constant problem across a wide variety of music articles. Sergecross73 msg me 02:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi WP:Albums guys, I'm from WP:Pro Wrestling. We have several stubs of music albums on professional wrestling. I want to know how to prove their notability (or lack thereof, then delete them). The wrestling websites I frequent don't mention these music albums. Is there a standard list of music album or music album review websites which if a album fails to appear on those, then it's considered not notable?

• ECW: Extreme Music in 1998
• WCW Mayhem: The Music in 1999
• WWF Tough Enough (album) in 2001

Thank you very much and have a nice day. starship.paint ~ KO 06:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

RM discussion ongoing; make comments there. --George Ho (talk) 03:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The usage and primary topic of facelift is under discussion, see talk:facelift (disambiguation) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the table assessing articles by importance/quality on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Assessment page, it's clear that it includes a lot of junk. The 1,284 albums listed as "N/A importance, stub class" seem to consist of formerly existing articles that have been AfD'd at some point, and now redirect to the article about the artist themselves. Is there no way of removing these articles from the categories and the table? I think a large number of the Low Importance albums could happily be AfD'd or redirected to a parent article: I'm willing to make a start on this task myself, although with tens of thousands of them it's going to take a very long time to work through them all.

I also think some of the importance ratings should be re-evaluated, particularly in the High Importance category – among the 20 albums categorised as "high importance, stub class", and with all due respect to the artists and their fans, I don't think anybody could seriously claim that Magia (Toque Profundo album), The Walking or Wired for Sound (among others) are albums of "high" importance. Am I able to reclassify them myself? I do believe that thoroughly re-evaluating the Top and High Importance albums, particularly down at the Start and Stub Class levels, would help to focus attention on the genuinely important albums where work should be prioritised, and help improve them. Richard3120 (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

You've brought up several worthwhile points here, but for now I'll only reply about one of them. The fact that at some point someone rated an article (accurately or not) as being of low importance to the WikiProject is definitely not a reason to nominate the article for deletion. And along similar lines, the fact that someone graded an article (accurately or not) as stub class is also not a reason for an AfD nomination. To say the same thing a different and more positive way, if an album meets the notability guidelines its article should normally be kept. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 20:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

My apologies Mudwater, you are quite correct, and I didn't make myself very clear. I'm not one for deleting articles gung ho simply because I don't know about them: even if the only information is a tracklisting and a single reference that it reached number 12 on the Norwegian album chart, that's good enough for me to keep the article. I'm talking about the ones that don't even have as much as this... they don't appear to meet WP:N in any way. I would rather these pages were redirected to a parent article about the artist. Richard3120 (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit: Here's an example – the album A/2 by Arcade. Just a tracklisting: I can't find any reviews on the internet, and even AllMusic simply gives the album two out of five stars, but no review text. As far as I can tell, the album never charted anywhere. So it does not meet either WP:N or WP:NM. What's the best solution for an article like this? Placing a notability header tag on the article, even though it is extremely unlikely that it will ever be improved? Merging to the parent article about the band? I'm just trying to collect opinions here, because there are many album articles like this on Wikipedia and I think we should establish a consensus about what we should do about them. Richard3120 (talk) 21:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@Richard3120: Thanks for clarifying. I do think that an album should be notable to have its own article, of course. So then we get into a discussion about what meets the minimum requirements for notability. I generally prefer to give an album the benefit of the doubt, so to speak. Taking A/2 as an example, as you mentioned it's listed on Allmusic, and it's also listed on Discogs. Additionally it turns up on some less well-known websites like Spirit of Metal and Heavy Harmonies, though, as you say, without any reviews that show up in a quick search of the internet. But in my view that's good enough to raise it above the level of the (hypothetical) CD that my cousin's band put out, after they got a few paying gigs at the bar down the street, and that's not mentioned anywhere except on their Facebook page. So I'd say A/2 rises to the minimum level of notability, though it's possible that not everyone would agree. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

My worry is that almost every album ever commercially released is listed on AllMusic and Discogs, so by that criterion every album is notable and worthy of its own Wikipedia article. You may say "that's fine by me", but I'm not certain that's what Wikipedia is supposed to be about, and from the WikiProject Albums point of view it would struggle to keep track and manage all those albums.

Looking at Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Recordings, the only one of the seven criteria that A/2 could possibly meet is the first one, "has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it". AllMusic is fine, but I know Discogs is not considered an RS because it is user-generated content, and the two metal blogs you mentioned probably aren't either. So that leaves just one RS, and the criterion states "multiple", so for me that would exclude the album and render it non-notable. Of course, I'm sure this record was reviewed in various hard rock magazines like Kerrang! back in 1994, but I don't know who would have access to those to add to the article.

Don't worry, I'm not going to go on a deleting binge: I've been on Wikipedia more than five years and never once nominated an article for AfD. In any case, my priority would be to get the high importance albums up to scratch first: these are the ones that are going to get more page views, rather than the trivial, obscure records. Richard3120 (talk) 02:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@Richard3120: Expanding and improving the articles about high importance albums in a very worthwhile goal. And related to that, I agree with your point that some albums currently tagged as high importance might not belong on the list. The flip side is that there are probably albums that should be tagged as high importance but current aren't. For the clicking convenience of interested editors, here are a few links:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Assessment
• Album articles tagged as top importance -- currently there are 135 of those.
• Album articles tagged as high importance -- currently there are 924 of them.

— Mudwater ^(Talk) 14:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The Top importance list isn't too much of a problem: I'd probably argue that Xx (album) ahouldn't be there, but it's an FA so the importance is somewhat irrelevant now, and down the bottom of the list I might question the rating of Millennium (Backstreet Boys album), Gaucho (album) and Racine Carrée, among others. The High importance list is more problematic, there are many albums I would re-rate downwards. Conversely, looking at the Low importance list I can see it includes GA-rated albums by Britney Spears, Lady Gaga, Elvis Presley, No Doubt, Destiny's Child and John Lennon, among others. I'm not saying that just because Presley and Lennon are world-famous their albums should automatically be rated higher – the albums in question, King Creole and Rock 'n' Roll aren't exactly the artists' best work, but they are probably as important as Gaucho, and yet we have a difference of Top to Low importance. Something doesn't seem quite right there. Richard3120 (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I've just noticed that All Mod Cons and The Lexicon of Love, two of the indisputably key albums of the British post-punk/new wave era, don't have any rating on the importance scale at all – astounding. I'd consider them both High Importance, but then again I'm British and perhaps an American wouldn't feel the same way. Richard3120 (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed AMC TLOL. In my view, if you feel very strongly that a particular album either should or should not be tagged as high importance, as in this case, I'd say go ahead and change it. I've already joined in the fun myself, adding two and removing one: E72, LD, DATD. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 18:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I've tagged Whatever People Say I Am, That's What I'm Not as high importance as well – another one without any rating at all, amazing. It's also only tagged as Start-class in quality, although looking over it I think it's at least a C-class and a candidate for B-class assessment: I need to have a proper look.

It's tricky trying to accurately assess albums if they weren't hits worldwide. I know the Jam mean nothing in the US, but in the UK they were every bit as important and influential a punk/new wave band as the Sex Pistols and the Clash, and commercially more successful than either, and All Mod Cons was their breakthrough third album that made them big stars. Conversely, the Dixie Chicks mean absolutely nothing to me or to the rest of Britain, but I'm quite prepared to believe that Taking the Long Way is a top importance level album, judging by its sales and awards in the US. Richard3120 (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

If an album article redirects to the artist the two main options are 1) remove project template and redirect the talkpage to the artist talkpage, and 2) change the project template class to "Redirect", and tag the talkpage with {{talk page of redirect}}. Generally, if there has been no previous discussion on the talkpage a straightforward redirect would be appropriate. If there has been some discussion there needs to be a decision made as to if the discussion should be left in place and option 2 followed, or if the discussion should be archived on the talkpage of the artist page and option 1 used. That decision can come down to common sense; though if in doubt ask for a second opinion.

As regards A/2 - that album is clearly not notable, so I have redirected it to the artist. For an album to be considered notable, it needs some non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Mere listing is regarded as not significant enough. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks SilkTork, it's good to get some other feedback. However, there are literally thousands, if not tens of thousands, of album articles of similar "notability" though. At the moment I think it's probably more important to concentrate on improving top, high and mid-level importance albums rather than waste my time going through the non-notable ones. I'm going to go through the lists of albums without an importance rating and at least give a rating to the articles about albums that definitely ARE notable but have no rating, so that they appear in the "rated" lists and people can see whether they want to work on improving them – it's usually easy to pick them out because they have the highest scores in the right-hand column. Richard3120 (talk) 02:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

While we are talking about importance, I see there are ~35,000 stub-class and ~13,000 start-class albums currently without importance ratings. While it wouldn't be perfect, does anyone think it worthwhile to request that a bot rates all of these as 'low importance'? Something from Category:Autoassessment bots could easily do this, and it would tidy up the table a little bit. It's a huge assumption to rate them all as low importance, of course, but any contentious ratings could quickly be reassessed by humans. What does everyone else think? — sparklism ^hey! 15:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Sparklism: that sounds like a good idea to me. I should point out, however, that I wasn't kidding when I said there was a lot of junk floating about that should probably be cleaned up, and I will stress again that I don't mean deleting articles by death metal bands who reached no. 26 in Poland in 1985, that's good enough to keep as a Low-importance, stub-class article in my opinion.

(1) A large number of the albums listed as "NA" or "???" ratings, and indeed many of the Low and even some Mid-importance albums, don't actually "exist" on Wikipedia – clearly they did at some point, but were AfD'd and if you click on a lot of the links to albums in those stub- and start-class ratings that you mention above, they now simply redirect to another page, usually the artist's Wikipedia entry. To give an example, try clicking on Cormorant (album) from the NA-importance, stub-class list. Is there any way of "cleaning" these no-longer-existent albums off the system? That would cut several thousand pages out that the bot would not have to sort.

(2) Lots of albums created by single-interest editors, usually of non-notable artists. See for example Benn Jordan and the numerous albums in his discography that have had Wikipedia pages created for each one of them. The guy sounds interesting, for sure, but almost all the references used are to blogs, his own website, his Bandcamp site, or the Alphabasic site, which is his own record label. A quick Google search struggled to come up with anything which might be useful as an RS. So unfortunately I would suggest that none of his work meets WP:NM.

(3) I'm a Depeche Mode fan, but pages like Recording the Angel and Recording the Universe are pointless. A looooong list of not commercially available albums, except from the band's own website – the only references used are to Discogs (a non-RS) simply to confirm track listings, and the relevant page on the band's website, which doesn't seem to be operational any more. The concept is interesting and deserves mentioning, but far better to do so in a paragraph on the relevant album's Wikipedia article than having its own page, I would suggest... and without all the endless track listings.

(4) Stuff like this is marked as mid-importance?

(5) Not quite as important, but I've come across various DVDs of live tours marked as belonging to WikiProject Albums – should this be the case? Richard3120 (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit: Actually, thinking about it, that's probably the very reason the NA-importance category exists - for all the redirected album articles that can no longer be categorised because they don't exist... doh. That being the case, an automatic move by a bot wouldn't be a good move then. Richard3120 (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you're right about that - the 'NA' category clearly has a use. I'm thinking that a bot could just tag all the '???'-rated pages as low-importance, and leave the 'NA' class pages alone. That would tidy the table up, somewhat.

I also agree with you about those Depeche Mode pages - it's worth mentioning elsewhere, but they don't need their own articles. I might even take them to AfD at some point.

I've been changing the importance rating for a few albums myself as I've come across them - I guess we just need to follow the WP:BRD cycle for things like this. With so many album pages around these days, there's always bound to be stuff that slips through the net, and you're probably right with what you stated right at the top of this thread: best to work on the more important stuff than worry about what's down at the bottom. Still, I seem to keep plugging away....Cheers! — sparklism ^hey! 18:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think people take much notice of the importance ratings on this project, but they are useful as a guide to seeing what albums need work as a priority. I guess most of the ratings were assessed originally by the people who created the articles – that's the only explanation I can think of why all Europe's albums have been tagged as Mid-importance, despite the fact everybody the world over only knows one song by them. That's not such a big deal, what's more important are cases like the three albums I mentioned above in my discussion with Mudwater slipping through the net as completely unrated: as a fellow Brit you'll appreciate why I believe they are all Mid-importance albums at least. It seems more important to me to tag these with some sort of rating so that people can see them and are aware they need work to get them up to GA or B-class. Richard3120 (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Yep, agreed. I'd've thought there shouldn't be too many albums of genuine importance that lack at least some sort of rating, because they would be the articles that naturally attract traffic/editors, but your examples show that that isn't necessarily the case. I'm particularly surprised about Whatever People Say I Am, That's What I'm Not, since it's certainly a recent enough album to have attracted plenty of activity. You're right though - maybe importance just isn't that important. — sparklism ^hey! 07:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

User Bogglenose123 has for some reason taken it upon themselves to create Get Weird (album) when Get Weird already exists – it appears the text for the two versions is identical, and the sole difference between them is the addition of the alternative cover for the deluxe edition of the album. What's the correct solution for this... copying the extra album cover to Get Weird and then placing a redirect on the newly created article? (As there are no other articles titled Get Weird, the version with the "album" disambiguator should be the one to go.) And if this is the correct solution, is there somebody able to do this for me please, as redirects are not my strong point? 00:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)Richard3120 (talk)

Done, redirected the duplicate article and added the extra album cover to the original one. Simply deleting the other page would be an option too, but given its title, it my be worth keeping. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 01:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Victor Lopes, I considered deletion as well, but looking at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A10. Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, the suggestion is that a redirect is the better option if the article title is a plausible alternative one, which of course it is. Thanks for your help. Richard3120 (talk) 01:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I often run into this site when searching for album reviews. Even though it's listed as an unreliable source at WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES, it never seems that a consensus was ever established whether it's reliable or not, not even from the thread that was linked there. So, should this be clarified to mean only the user reviews are unreliable? I noticed several albums on there are reviewed by "UG Team", a group of staff users from the site. Kokoro20 (talk) 04:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

It's been like a week since I posted this. Does anyone have any input? Kokoro20 (talk) 04:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, guess I missed this one. I agree that only staff-produced content should be acceptable. As a matter of fact, given the apparent controversy, I mostly use UG only when I'm struggling to find multiple good sources to build a decent reception section. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 04:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, unless I'm missing something, there was never an actual consensus as to whether or not Ultimate Guitar is reliable at all. That's why I asked if it's fine to still cite staff reviews like we already do with AllMusic, (which recently start to accept user reviews) Sputnikmusic, AbsolutePunk, among others. Kokoro20 (talk) 05:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Yep, that's why I try not so use it as long as there are other good sources for reviews. If there is no consensus, then at least staff-produced content is acceptable until a discussion says otherwise. User-generated content remains unreliable, as with other sources. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 14:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I think this sounds okay – sort of reminds of Sputnikmusic and the situation we discussed regarding Rockfreaks. JG66 (talk) 04:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't see this to now, but yes, I agree that we should handle it as we do Sputnikmusic. Some of their staff interviews in particular have been great sources of content for a number of articles I've worked on, so it would definitely be beneficial to use in some capacity. Sergecross73 msg me 15:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the input everyone. I'll go ahead and add it to WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES now. Kokoro20 (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The usage and primary topic of Boy Cried Wolf is under discussion, see talk:Boy Cried Wolf (album) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

A summary of a Featured Article tagged by this wikiproject will appear on the Main Page soon. It mostly follows the lead section; how does it look? - Dank (push to talk) 13:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Can some one point me to any discussion on Wilson & Alroy's record review site as a source or give the results of any discussion on if it is considered acceptable? Site is at: http://www.warr.org/cgi-bin/randompickpan2.cgi Thanks! Airproofing (talk) 03:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

According to their awards section, they were mentioned at EW and Bass Player Magazine. I don't think that's enough to make them notable. Erick (talk) 04:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they look like a couple of enthusiastic, but unpublished, music fans with their own blog, which isn't going to be enough to pass WP:RS. Richard3120 (talk) 04:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

OK. Thanks.Airproofing (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

FYI, since I've seen this book incorporated often for scores in the ratings template but credited erroneously as Spin, I created Spin Alternative Record Guide yesterday, so feel encouraged to use it and link it properly. Similar to The Rolling Stone Album Guide rather than Rolling Stone. Dan56 (talk) 05:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I could've sworn I'd seen Goldmine in the list of sources in years gone by … Does anyone object to its inclusion? I've got a couple of old print issues in my collection: very thorough in its style for discographies, from what I can see; reporting seems dry and concise, much like Billboard of old. Contributors, going back decades, include Dave Thompson, Gillian G. Gaar and Harvey Kubernik. (Those are the ones I've heard of, anyway.) Some album reviews are available online, although it seems the star rating doesn't always appear there. Any thoughts? JG66 (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

a quick search through wikiblame suggests it was never listed there, but it seems fine to me, based on the journalists you've mentioned and the fact that it has a regular editorial staff. i don't know much about the magazine itself but published print sources are usually okay. by the way, (open to anyone!) what's the procedure for blogs associated with reliable sources, like those goldmine happens to have? Boomur [☎] 21:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

When it comes to blog posts associated with reliable sources, I always just treat them like the rest of the site, just as long as they are written by the staff (per WP:NEWSBLOG). It would appear that the blogs there are written by staff, not regular users, so I don't see why not. Kokoro20 (talk) 07:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. Yes, ditto Kokoro20's comment. Not that I'm too familiar with the site, but the few blog items I have come across there have been written by Thompson or Kubernik, or by staffers such as John Borack and Mike Greenblatt ("A longtime music journalist, Mike Greenblatt is a contributing editor with Goldmine magazine"). Worth noting also that some LA Times album reviews appear online under the newspaper's music blogs, no? JG66 (talk) 08:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Interested editors are invited to discuss here. Chase (talk | contributions) 20:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Ongoing move discussion. --George Ho (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I have opened a peer review for the article List of best-selling Latin albums in the United States. I am looking for input from anyone who has experience with working on list of best-selling albums or singles. Thanks! Erick (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The usage and topic of Peace Pipe is under discussion, see talk:Peace pipe (disambiguation) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The usage, naming and primary topic of Stratospheric is under discussion, see talk:Stratospheric -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 11:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The usage and primary topic of Venting is under discussion, see talk:Venting (disambiguation) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Live in America (The Babys album) was, according to its article, released in 2008 on some indie label. However, it says right at the top of the same article that it was originally released in 2001 by EMI as Valentine Babys. I was able to verify that. It would make sense to redo the article to reflect the original release date and title, and just add in the re-release info as is usual (and easy in this case, as nothing was added).

However, I haven't really moved heavily linked articles like this before, so I just wanted to run down a list and have someone look at it to make sure I didn't miss anything in my tasklist before I do it. It's in no particular order other than not moving the article until last.

1. Add cite for original release in album article
2. Update infobox to original release info
3. Add re-release info in new section to allow for anchor (no track change, so no new tracklist section needed)
4. Update discography infobox for previous and next albums around re-release
5. Update discography infobox for previous and next albums around original release
6. Update discography on main page
7. Move article to new title

Should that cover everything? MSJapan (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@MSJapan: I don't really understand why you need to move the article – why can't you just improve the current one? You only need to move an article if its title changes. Richard3120 (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit: Sorry, I'm an idiot, I've just seen what you said about the original title. However, I'm struggling to see the notability of this album – what references are going to be provided? Richard3120 (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

No idea - I figured it was notable because nobody else had ever deleted it in five years. However, as I haven't found any sources, I think I'll save the effort and prod it. MSJapan (talk) 20:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@MSJapan: Sorry, I wasn't trying to be mean, I appreciate you had good intentions to improve the article. But I suspect you were thinking of using Discogs as a main reference for release date, track listing, etc., and as that's user-generated content, it isn't allowable as a source under Wikipedia rules. So unless we can add some reviews of the album I'm not sure what we can say about it, and even the AllMusic entries for the album (both as Valentine Baby AND Live in America) have no rating and no text... if AllMusic has nothing, it's unlikely we'll be able to find much else. I see you have PROD'ed The Official Unofficial BABYS Album as well – to me this is an even more likely candidate for deletion, as it appears to be a 30-year-old collection of home demos by a single member of the band, not even featuring the rest of the group. I raised a thread here a few weeks ago pointing out that a large number of album articles in the Low-Importance category were possible candidates for deletion: I suspect their lack of notability has been pointed out before, but it's another thing to take the time and effort to take them to AfD.

As an aside, as a Brit I find it intriguing that this British band were reasonably successful in the US, and remain utterly unknown in their home country. Even after John Waite had a top ten hit in the UK with "Missing You", I would bet a large sum of money that virtually everybody in the UK still thinks he's American. Richard3120 (talk) 20:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I legitimately figured the article was fine as it was, and was just going to correct it. The reason it's still here is just an example of exactly what I did, which was assume it was OK and work on it rather than actually dig into it and make sure it actualy belongs here. I generally don't use discogs for RS, just verification, and it happened to be the first GHit I got.

I have found (speaking from the other side of the pond) that the stylistics of British and American acts in the same genres are very different, so I can see why it could appeal on one side and not the other. That happens a lot when otherwise big American artists can't sell a record for beans in the States, and then absolutely kill it in Japan. MSJapan (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Yep, very true what you say about "rock" being very different between the US and UK: I live in Colombia most of the time, where pop and rock music is very much dictated by the US tastes, and here they are amazed that I don't know many "classic" rock tracks... the truth is that when punk and new wave arrived in the UK in 1976–77 it killed what little market there was for AOR. Bands like Kiss, Boston and Air Supply mean next to nothing in the UK, even to the older generation, while Journey needed more than a quarter of a century and an appearance in Glee to finally start shifting copies of "Don't Stop Believing". Iron Maiden and Def Leppard are far bigger in the rest of the world than they are at home, because they sound very "American" to our ears. And on the other hand, the punkier sounding American groups like Foo Fighters, White Stripes and Green Day shift serious amounts of records in the UK... one look at the UK charts in 2015 will tell you they are just about the ONLY guitar bands that still sell in the UK, and the reason why the last remaining weekly alternative music paper, the NME, has just thrown in the towel and become a lifestyle/entertainment magazine. Richard3120 (talk) 21:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Judging from dates, the group was also attempting to peak as musical tastes were shifting. MSJapan (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I have a question about release dates. A lot of albums are made available for online streaming a little while before the official commercial release. Should the date they're made available for streaming be counted as the release date or should it be the commercial release date? Littlecarmen (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Use the commercial release date. Note even in your question online streaming is not called "release", just "made available". The date of online streaming (if notable) can be mentioned in the article text (if sourced).—Iknow23 (talk) 21:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Could we include Time, The Plain Dealer, The Austin Chronicle, The Sydney Morning Herald, Entertainment.ie on the WP:ALBUM/SOURCES page or have they been excluded on purpose? CoolMarc 06:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd have no problem at all in seeing those sources added. I imagine there are no end of similar titles – the San Francisco Chronicle and Houston Chronicle instantly come to mind. But generally, I'm not sure what we're trying to achieve here: is WP:ALBUM/SOURCES intended to be an exhaustive list? If so, it's a long way off achieving that, surely … JG66 (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you JG66 – I don't think there's any intention to exclude certain sources, and I don't think including music reviews from newspapers is a problem. But then there is nothing to stop us including reviews from German newspapers, French ones, etc. so I don't know where you draw the line or how you include every acceptable source. Personally I try and source reviews from dedicated music magazines where possible as a first choice before looking for reviews in newspaper columns, no matter how respected or widely avaialbe the newspaper, but that's my personal preference. Richard3120 (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I actually think an exhaustive list is beneficial; I've noticed in a number of song/album GA reviews that editors disagree as to what's reliable and what's not. I know we should generally refer to WP:RSN but this is a fantastic guideline imo, especially for new editors and IPs who insist on using really awful blogs as sources. CoolMarc 17:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Generally, when Wikiprojects make sources lists like this, they are specific to that subject matter. (WikiProject Video games only lists video game and tech sources, for example.) so, if we're taking that sort of approach, then they don't really need to be added. The list just becomes to large if you list every general source out there. (Though it's still understood that they're generally usuable...) So, I'm personally against adding them... Sergecross73 msg me 17:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I see your point. I noticed that the current list has the likes of The Independent and The Daily Telegraph for example which are general newspapers and not entirely dedicated to music whatsoever but are still very reputable. Hence why I asked. I don't think such a list would become that exhaustive either, reputable sources for music articles are rather limited in our current blogosphere... CoolMarc 17:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

It's definitely becoming an issue more and more as we lose the old reliable sources. Speaking as a UK editor, there are now no weekly music magazines any more (apart from specialist genre mags), following the NME going to a general entertainment format. Q, Uncut and Mojo are still around but the last two in particular tend to focus on "classic" old records and reissues and don't cover new music in such great detail. So it's more important to find reliable online sources, avoiding those dubious blogs. Richard3120 (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

<edit conflict>Oddly enough, I agree with everyone's point of view here. As a rule, I follow Richard3120's approach: reviews from dedicated music magazines, first and foremost. Sometimes, there's no need to look beyond those, but it's certainly not always the case. Given the vintage of the music I generally write about (1960s–early '70s), I'm also reliant on album guides – which isn't always ideal, because they often dedicate a couple of sentences to an album, at best. Regarding possible additions to our list of sources, though, I think Sergecross73 has got it right: the major newspapers are good but don't need to be included. Not quite sure how that leaves us when it comes to The Independent, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, The Observer, The Los Angeles Times, etc, all of which do appear … I choose to not be confused by this issue(!). JG66 (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@JG66: I spend most of my time in South America these days, but I do travel back to the UK regularly and have a pass to use the British Library... if you or any other members of this WikiProject would like me to try and find reviews from back issues of UK music magazines and newspapers from the 1960s and 70s for any of your articles, I'm happy to have a look next time I'm in London. Richard3120 (talk) 01:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@Richard3120: That's a mighty kind offer – I hope you don't live to regret it! There's certainly a couple I wouldn't mind seeing …

I've made a similar offer in the past, and I'm always surprised no one's taken me up on it: if anyone wants me to access content at Rock's Backpages for particular album articles, then pls let me know. The range of writers and publications at RBP is amazing, and they're constantly adding new content. For example, they've now got six contemporary reviews for the Beatles' White Album and five for the Stones' Some Girls – so it's especially good for those of us who are slightly retro-obsessed. JG66 (talk) 02:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@JG66: It's not a problem for me, providing people only ask for a handful of albums in one go (I'm not spending my entire holidays in a library) – isn't that the point of this WikiProject after all, that we all collaborate to try and improve the quality of album articles? For example, I found the original 1968 reviews of Simon & Garfunkel's Bookends in NME and Melody Maker which helped promote that article to GA status, and I'd like to do the same for Bridge over Troubled Water. Judging by your personal GA article list I imagine you are keen to see original reviews of albums by the Beatles and subsequent members' solo works.

I may take you up on your offer as an "exchange scheme": I subscribe to the RBP weekly newsletter, but I've always baulked at the cost of taking out a private subscription, and I don't live anywhere near an academic institution or library that has it. I normally use the RBP search to locate magazine issues that contain reviews or interviews related to articles I'm working on, and then go to the British Library and dig out the print copy! But RBP also contains articles that appeared in now-defunct US magazines like Creem and Trouser Press, and those magazines are almost impossible to get hold of in the UK by any means, even on eBay. Richard3120 (talk) 15:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good (well, the cost of the subscription isn't – you're dead right about that). More on your talk page soon … JG66 (talk) 16:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Need a quick opinion on the reliablity of this source that I've seen added recently: [4] It appears to be a blog from their about page that has got some media press, but I'm not sure if we should count it as a reliable source. Thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Unreliable - Their "about us" page just describes them as self-proclaimed music nerds, there's really no credentials given for any of the writers, nor do they seem to have any sort of editorial policy (other than, no illegal mp3s.) While it's impressive that some high level sources have said nice things about them, it really would go more towards their notability than their reliability. To me, it looks like yet another blog that probably would fail WP:RS and WP:USERG. Sergecross73 msg me 13:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• just because their editorial policy isn't listed doesn't mean there isn't one...i'm not sure about this one, but it does list editorial staff. the site is also, or was at some point, a partner of and operated by Spin Media. it appears that it's still a Spin property, just no longer listed on the current site. but, i think that gives them some more credibility than their about page would suggest they have. Boomur [☎] 16:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• There's...an awful lot of "ifs and maybes" in that reasoning. I'd be swayed if some of this could be proven, but in my experience, usually if websites/publications/writers have policies/corporate associations/credentials, they're pretty upfront about it, for, you know, credibility. All I see is a bunch of self-professed fans (more or less their words, not mine) which is more like every other non-notable amateur blog out there... Sergecross73 msg me 17:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• Sergecross, i appreciate your critiques, but i don't actually think there are many "maybes" here; just whether or not PMA continues to be operated by Spin, but even then i don't think that's much of a maybe. just because they aren't "upfront" about it doesn't diminish the validity of the association; likewise, i've never seen a source rejected for not listing its editorial policies on its website. on top of that, i do think that positive attention from mainstream media contributes to PMA's reliability; it's not just that they are referring to the site as an entity that exists or has influence (notability), they are expressing agreement with its general attitudes about music and style (to me, that represents some degree of reliability). all that said, i'm not convinced about the credibility of this source for other reasons. chiefly, i can't find any publications outside the site by any of the authors (or the editor). this isn't completely a red X for me, and they could still have backgrounds in music journalism (i only did some cursory searches) but it does raise a few questions. Boomur [☎] 18:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The "maybe's" I was referring to was:

1. Do their writers have any sort of credentials? (Seems like no.)
2. Do they have an editorial policy? (Seems like no, or it'd readily available. I know this is considered an important element at the Video Game Wikiproject source evaluation page equivalent. Looking at their talk page, editorial policy being present is brought up as a point of contention over 5 separate source evaluations, and that's not even looking into the 11 pages of talk page archives.
3. Are they still connected to Spin Media? (If they were, this should also be easily found on their website.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I looked for prior music critic experience by the staff members and found nothing. Binksternet (talk) 06:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

They are used for Metacritic aggregates, so there must be some reliability surely? CoolMarc 06:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that, however does Metacritic have any standards that are spoken of what constitutes their critic choices? Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Using WikiProject Video Games as an example again, there's a lot of overlap over what Wikipedia and Metacritic deems usable sources (80% if I had to take a stab at it?) but there's still some sources that don't meet our guidelines, and some that don't meet theirs. I don't actually know their standards, just that there are similarities, but the overlap itself isn't necessarily enough to just deem one reliable or anything... Sergecross73 msg me 13:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@Earthh:@Nerdtrap: Re this, this and this. We discussed the issue with Dustblower, in fact, a while back. I know there was some talk then about standardising all, but regardless of that, DB did concede that the disc symbols he introduced should go. Not long after that PopMatters (another source we discussed) changed their ratings from discs to stars, a redesign that affected all of the site's previous reviews also, which took away part of the problem, I guess. Anyway, it would appear that yes, the alternative/disc symbols should go, but rather than stars, they should now have numerals. JG66 (talk) 14:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they all mean the same thing, so the visual representations should be consistent. Just make all of them be stars or something. (That's what I most consistently see across the website at least.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Apologies for the previous revert- given how long the ratings had been in place it seemed like an agreement had been reached.--Nerdtrap (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely – no worries. Truth be told, one of us should have acted on that earlier outcome. JG66 (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The Category:Albums by gold certification, and related subcategories, have been nominated for deletion. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I proposed a merger of two articles. Comment there. --George Ho (talk) 04:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Does anybody mind checking grammar in this article I created? (Graal (album)). I'm not a native speaker and I'm afraid that I might've made some mistakes Tashi _{Talk to me} 18:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done@Tashi: I've gone through the grammar, but there are some issues with citations and the reliability of sources that you may want to check. For instance, you have used Discogs as a reference for the personnel involved on the album. Discogs is discouraged on Wikipedia as it is user-generated content: it would be better if you could check that this information matches the information on the notes in the CD book, and then say "Credits adapted from liner notes", for example. Richard3120 (talk) 22:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. As I see you there wasn't much grammar mistakes, which makes me glad. I don't need to check it whether the information match because I adapted them from the booklet to Discogs. Thank you for your help. Tashi _{Talk to me} 10:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

No problem – I just thought I would mention it because it is difficult for us who do not speak Polish or who are unfamiliar with the sources to know how reliable they are. But that's an issue for another day. Richard3120 (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)